The High Court upped the sentence for Chinese national Wang Minjiang (right) from an $8,000 fine to a 12-month jail term yesterday.

Justice Choo Han Teck said a more rigorous sentence was needed to discourage international prostitution of the 'young and vulnerable'.

This is the first case under a new law to protect minors from sexual exploitation to come before the High Court.

In February, it became a crime to pay for sex with someone under the age of 18. Offenders could face a maximum jail term of seven years.

Although the law provided for a fine at the lowest end of the scale for this new offence, Justice Choo said a fine should be reserved only in cases of exceptional circumstances. Justice Choo's sentence is likely to serve as a sentencing guideline for future cases of this nature.

In August, Wang, 36, was one of several men hauled to court over the prostitution of two young women.

Wang had brought the two, including the 17-year-old, into Singapore from China. He set them up for prostitution, escorting them to solicit for business and taking a cut of their earnings.

He pleaded guilty to four charges: bringing a prostitute into Singapore, living off her earnings, running his sex business from a Geylang coffee shop, and aiding a 55-year-old to obtain sexual services from the 17-year-old.

Two men, aged 60 and 55, who had sex with the girl, have been charged but have yet to be dealt with.

Wang was fined $25,000 but served a default jail term of 25 weeks as he did not pay the fine.

The prosecution appealed against the $8,000 fine on the fourth charge, which comes under the new law.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Mark Tay argued last week that the fine was 'manifestly inadequate' and that Wang should be jailed for between 12 and 18 months.

He argued that it was the intention of Parliament that these offences be viewed seriously and enforced strictly. He said the district judge had failed to appreciate that the law was specifically enacted to protect those below the age of 18.

However, Justice Choo yesterday pointed out that the criticism levelled against the lower court was 'too harsh and may not be warranted'.